Recently I read a blog about Augusta National Golf Course in Georgia, the home of the Masters. It expressed disapproval that the club is an “all male” organization which does not accept women members.
I am a very independent woman who deems herself equal if not superior to a lot of men in many respects. My position on this subject, however, is: Let guys be guys. What is the problem with that??? The notion that women and men are equal in every sense and that we have the same needs is nonsense. Another politically correct “good intention” going haywire! Why should it make any woman insecure in this day and age when they can do whatever the heck they want if guys demand a little privacy and “time out” from the opposite sex?
Even though I prefer to do certain things with men – golf; talking politics; playing Black Jack; doing business, and of course being intimate with that special someone in my life – there are many times when I desire a “DUDE FREE ZONE”.
I think it reasonable that guys would have the same needs – a little respect in that regard could go a long way. I personally have no desire to be present when “boys are boys”. I prefer them to be gentlemen around me. Is it reasonable to expect that they should be at their best behavior at all times just in case a chick shows up? Would I like that demand to be made on me in reverse?
And what of the gazillion women’s organizations that don’t accept male members? A perfect example is the Belizean Grove, a highly selective club for women only that future Supreme Count Justice, Sonia Sotomayor belonged to at the time of nomination. That went under the radar and was not a news story, but Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s supposed membership in an all-male eating club while an undergraduate at Princeton became an issue during his 2006 Supreme Court confirmation hearing. I don’t have a problem with either; why should I? How is either bad for me? Good for her and good for him! Why the double standard, though???
Federal civil right laws don't make it unlawful for private clubs to discriminate based on whatever basis they choose, including sex and/or race. There are some exceptions, as in the case of the Boys Scout of America...
While I firmly believe that private organizations should have the right – and thank God they still do in this free country – to determine their own rules regarding membership (within the rules of the Constitution of the United States), I find it highly inappropriate for organizations funded by taxpayers.
The Congressional Black Caucus does not allow white members and on numerous occasions has rejected those who tried to join. Again, a selective “correctness” and it would seem to me a downright violation of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination based on race… Can you imagine if some created a Congressional White Caucus and refused to allow black members? I guess this discrimination is accepted by our law makers in the same spirit as approving funding for NPR, but would find request for any public funding for Rush Limbaugh out of the question.
NPR trashes Conservatives and the GOP regularly and fired Juan Williams, a Democrat and an accomplished and well respected journalist who writes for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, specifically for daring to be a commentator on the conservative leaning Fox News Channel. Rush Limbaugh is a champion of conservatism. Can anyone tell me why one is getting federal funding and the other could not even if hell froze over?
In conclusion: Augusta National is not a problem – let’s not try to make it one and apply unequal standards to that organization in the name of the twisted; divisive, and destructive weapon against freedom called “Political Correctness”.